TOPIC:

Sacko - the WP CEO has agreed they have to pay, done deal bad luck..

even Leedy has backflipped on this one

Underdog wrote: Kraks would still be cleared for WP wouldn't he?

So if he was up in the mines and thought "nah, this isn't for me", he could come back down and play for WP.

That's why Bottrell would be suggesting that the transfer is complete and anything that happens beyond that is irrelevant.

Is there any evidence Kraks broke the contract with WP?

I would suggest underdog that if he is not playing football then he is breaking the contract? I am sure they signed him to play football.
Having said that the contract would have a lot more to it than that.

MarkOlsen wrote: Sacko - the WP CEO has agreed they have to pay, done deal bad luck..

even Leedy has backflipped on this one

Yep but you haven't got a cent of it yet though have you?

no, but the CEO has agreed to pay and the WAFL said they have to pay so whats the problem ?

Greatwhiteshark wrote:

Underdog wrote: Kraks would still be cleared for WP wouldn't he?

So if he was up in the mines and thought "nah, this isn't for me", he could come back down and play for WP.

That's why Bottrell would be suggesting that the transfer is complete and anything that happens beyond that is irrelevant.

Is there any evidence Kraks broke the contract with WP?

I would suggest underdog that if he is not playing football then he is breaking the contract? I am sure they signed him to play football.
Having said that the contract would have a lot more to it than that.

I'd say they contracted him to their club so that if he wants to play football it has to be with them.

The fact that there is a third party deal due to the off-field role adds complications. Does he have one contract? two? Are they dependant?

There have been countless players leave their contracted clubs without issue over the years for a variety of reasons.

Ultimately these guys are just part timers, not professionals - their primary source of income has to be the priority and clubs usually understand this.

MarkOlsen wrote: no, but the CEO has agreed to pay and the WAFL said they have to pay so whats the problem ?

I know what the CEO said but your problem is you havent got the cash. If you think West a Perth arn't going to actually fight this then your in dream land

Sacko wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: no, but the CEO has agreed to pay and the WAFL said they have to pay so whats the problem ?

I know what the CEO said but your problem is you havent got the cash. If you think West a Perth arn't going to actually fight this then your in dream land

Well that's for them to sort out Sacko, you're arguing some petty semantics.

It seems WP, SD and the WAFL all agree the transfer should be paid. Whether they fight it remains to be seen. Speculating on that is pretty pointless.

I don't see on what grounds they have to fight it though. Whether Kraks plays for them or not, he remains transferred to WP. It's not like SD can play him if he gives up FIFO in 2 months. This job offer appears to have appeared post the transfer and thus shouldn't be SD's problem.

Leedy wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: hah, Leedy - have a look at the post above yours !!!

Haha, what is said and what you get are 2 different things, I can tell you if that statement has been made, they would have got payment from Kraks to cover it !

The above is still stands and at this very moment is alive and well Olly !!!

Underdog wrote:

Sacko wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: no, but the CEO has agreed to pay and the WAFL said they have to pay so whats the problem ?

I know what the CEO said but your problem is you havent got the cash. If you think West a Perth arn't going to actually fight this then your in dream land

Well that's for them to sort out Sacko, you're arguing some petty semantics.

It seems WP, SD and the WAFL all agree the transfer should be paid. Whether they fight it remains to be seen. Speculating on that is pretty pointless.

I don't see on what grounds they have to fight it though. Whether Kraks plays for them or not, he remains transferred to WP. It's not like SD can play him if he gives up FIFO in 2 months. This job offer appears to have appeared post the transfer and thus shouldn't be SD's problem.

Well that's for them to sort out Underdog, you're arguing some petty semantics.

It seems WP, SD and the WAFL all agree the transfer should be paid. Whether they fight it remains to be seen. Speculating on that is pretty pointless.

whats the latest from your sources Leedy ?